Charles Johnston, “The Dogma of the Virgin Birth,” “Theosophical Quarterly” Vol. 9, p. 226-227

“Jesus himself has nothing to say [i.e. in any of the Four Gospels, nor other books of the New Testament; what the narrator of certain of the Gospels may say is not the same as Jesus himself saying it, nor should it carry the same weight; the latter does not even mention it] of the Virgin Birth, as an abnormal event in his own life. On the contrary, he brushes aside an attempt to glorify the physical circumstances of his birth. 

“John and Paul, Peter and Mark, James and Jude are equally silent as to the material Virgin Birth of Jesus, though many occasions for referring to this presented themselves. 

“On the other hand, Jesus himself, and also John and Paul, Peter and James, have very much to say of the real Virgin Birth, in the spiritual sense, the “birth from above” through the Holy Spirit, the birth of “the new man, the Lord from heaven.” Peter speaks of all the regenerate as thus “begotten of God, of incorruptible seed;” and James speaks of “the Father of Lights,” who “of his own will begat us with the Word of truth.” In this spiritual rebirth, the Virgin Birth from above, Jesus is, as Paul says, “the first-born among many brethren.”

“When we come to the apocryphal gospels, we find this idea of the spiritual Virgin Birth materialised into an abnormal physiological event, which is described with abundance of realistic detail, and elaborately developed. We find it in intimate association with two other doctrines, that of the Virgin Birth of Mary, and that of Mary’s “perpetual virginity.” It is evident that this ascetic view of the events of life dates from the period of the hermits and celibates, during which the celibacy of the clergy was also formulated, though we know from the New Testament that Peter and the other apostles, as well as “the brethren of the Lord” were married, and Paul especially recommends the choice of married men as bishops. There is every likelihood that the material doctrine of the Virgin Birth flowed back from the apocryphal gospels into the early chapters of Matthew and Luke, which are not closely attached to the rest of the New Testament. 

“This is the conclusion as to the purely Christian side of the dogma. But it is in no sense a peculiarly Christian doctrine. On the contrary, it is already in existence in the oldest records of mankind. We find it as a twofold doctrine, cosmic and particular. As a cosmic doctrine, it gives an account of the formation of the world, by the manifestation of the Logos, the divine Man “immortal in the heavens.” As a particular doctrine, we find it applied to divine Incarnations, who are held to be manifestations of the Logos in human form, for the salvation of mankind. These incarnations are always associated with the idea of the Virgin Birth, a “birth without sin.” 

“When Jesus came to be recognized as a divine Incarnation, it was both natural and right that all the characteristics of such Incarnation should be applied to him; that he should be endowed with all the insignia of royalty, including the Virgin Birth, as a spiritual teaching. This was as natural and right as that John should apply to him Philo’s doctrine of the Logos, which was but the restatement of the oldest spiritual teaching in the world. It was equally natural that pious but unlearned devotees should materialise this teaching, and turn it into an abnormal physiological event, as we find in the apocryphal gospels. 

“If these conclusions are just, then we are in no sense called on to accept the Virgin Birth of Jesus as a physiological fact; but on the other hand, the Virgin Birth of Jesus, as of all the regenerate, in the true spiritual sense, is not only true, but is an integral part of religion.”

“Notes and Comments,” “Theosophical Quarterly” Vol. 4, p. 201-202

“The idea would seem to be that ordinary mortals are reborn through bondage to desire, under the law of karma. The spiritually perfect are born by their own choice, through compassion, free from desire. The past karma is symbolically called ‘the mother,’ as the Higher Self is called ‘the father.’ Immaculate conception means that a pure and high soul has been born through compassion, of a clean or immaculate karma; and this is the world-old symbol of the Virgin Birth. On this question of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, it is interesting to recall, what has been pointed out by Professor Toy of Harvard among others, that the passages cited by the evangelists as prophetic of the virgin birth are mistranslations. Professor Toy translates the passage from Isaiah vii., 14, “Behold the young woman shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” And he adds, in comment: “The rendering ‘virgin’ is inadmissable. The Hebrew has a separate word for ‘virgin,’ and the Greek versions, other than the Septuagint [i.e. the earliest Greek translation of the Bible], here translate by ‘young woman.'”

“Notes and Comments,” “Theosophical Quarterly” Vol. 14, p. 4

“We have all noted, within the last few weeks, that one of the more modern and democratic Churches is at this moment, in this part of the world, threatened with schism, because there is a division concerning certain dogmas: the Dogma of the Virgin Birth, the Dogma of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Dogma of Original Sin and its transmission; and, without doubt, there have been many perplexed and saddened minds, many broken hearts, caused by hopeless bewilderment over just such teachings. Here is one point, and a representative one, at which even a little Theosophy can bring abundant aid and comfort. For almost every beginner in Theosophical studies understands that the Dogma of the Virgin Birth in reality refers to the feminine aspect of the Logos, that “Theou-Sophia,” as St. Paul calls it [i.e. in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere, Paul uses this Greek term θεοῦσοφία, usually translated “Wisdom of God” in English New Testaments and almost indistinguishable in any way from the word θεοσοφία: Theosophia or Theosophy] ,which is the real “Mother of God,” in the deep and universal sense; the Birth-giver of the Christ, in the eternal sense; it is only the materialization of the teaching, and not the real teaching, that can prove a stumbling-block.”

Clement A. Griscom, Jr., “The Holy Spirit,” “Theosophical Quarterly” Vol. 14, p. 217-219

“We have already seen that Christ in his “mystical body” has an immediate and close connection with the nascence, the upbuilding, the whole life of the Spirit in man. The identification is so close that the two words Spirit and Christ (Χριστός) are interchangeable throughout St. Paul. Beyond pointing out this fact no detailed explanation has so far been offered. But when we try to interpret the Gospel accounts of Christ’s life, his recorded utterances about the Spirit, and the manifestations of the Spirit in certain critical events in his life, some attempt at an explanation becomes essential or else the significance of his revelation is entirely lost. In fact, it is the loss of any really spiritual understanding of Christ’s incarnation that is so sad a feature of present day Christianity. The interpretation put today upon the life of the Galilean Master, based as it is almost exclusively upon its merely human aspect, and without any insight into his mystical life, has become so narrow and fixed, that Christian belief has even built up a crystalized orthodox code explaining those events, such as the Virgin Birth or the Transfiguration, that are avowedly transcendental, and, like the first aphorisms of Light on the Path, have “remained sealed as to their inner meaning.” The Church has agreed on an orthodox statement of its ignorance, so to speak; and while acknowledging a mystery, it has surrounded the mystery with an interpretation suitable to its own ideas of what should or must be.

“But complete explanation there is; and Madame Blavatsky, without actually stating what in itself is inexplicable in terms of an intellect untrained and unenlightened by the experience of the religious life, has in a multitude of ways sought to demonstrate the rational and philosophical necessity for at least assuming the existence and recognizing the genre of this spiritual life. She has dealt specifically with Christ’s mystical life, not only in Isis, The Secret Doctrine, and the Glossary, but also in repeated allusions throughout her writings. Especially to be recommended are her notes to G. R. S. Mead’s translation of the Gnostic Pistis Sophia, and a very valuable series of articles on “The Esoteric Character of the Gospels.”

“The life of Christ may be looked at in two ways. The Master’s words and actions may be taken as our ideal, as an example of how we should act, or should hope to be able to act some day; — and we derive as much inspiration from considering his life in this way as we put hearty devotion into our study. We may likewise derive inspiration from the biographies of mystics, saints, and disciples of every age, — who have proclaimed their rebirth and demonstrated with varying  completeness the realization on earth of the higher life of the Spirit. But Jesus’ life was more than this; he was more than the incarnation of a Master; he was an Avatar, a special Divine Incarnation, whose mission it was and is to act for this race at once as ideal prototype, and as initiator into the “mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus Christ was a human man; that is, he was all that we should and ought to become, for “as many as received him, to them he gave power to become the sons of God [children of God], even to them that believe on his Name”; to which Paul adds, “For as many as are guided by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” But Jesus Christ was also the Logos, one person of the Trinity; and it is the mystery of this dual nature that stands backs of all the Church’s complicated and misconceived theories about the Trinity, and what is known as scholastic metaphysics.

“The study of the doctrine of Avatars is extremely complex and difficult, but certain phases of it bear direct relation to our subject. The Virgin Birth cannot be understood without it. And as the very first verse of St. Matthew, after the genealogies, tells us that, “Now the generation of the Christos was in this wise: when his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit,” — it would seem that this problem might as well be faced now as later. Mr. [Charles] Johnston in the October QUARTERLY of volume IX, p. 218, discusses the Virgin Birth as “really an integral part of a much wider doctrine, of the doctrine fundamental to all religion: the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Divine Man.” He gives as illustrations of the universality of this belief parallel narratives from other great religions, — to which might be added the comparisons between Hindu, Egyptian, and Christian Virgin-Birth litanies cited by Madame Blavatsky in Isis (Vol. II, p. 209). The latter in the Glossary emphasizes this idea in a paragraph on “Incarnations (Divine) or Avatars.” “The Immaculate Conception is as pre-eminently Egyptian as it is Indian. As the author of Egyptian Belief has it: ‘It is not the vulgar, coarse, and sensual story of the Greek mythology, but refined, moral, and spiritual’; and again the incarnation idea was found revealed on the wall of the Theban temple by Samuel Sharp, who thus analyses it: ‘First the god Thoth . . . as the messenger of the gods, like the Mercury of the Greeks (or the Gabriel of the first Gospel) tells the maiden queen Mautmes, that she is to give birth to a son, who is to be king Amunotaph III. Secondly, the god Kneph, the Spirit . . . and the goddess Hathor (Nature) . . . both take hold of the queen by the hands and put into her mouth the character for life, a cross, which is to be the life of the coming child,’ etc., etc. Truly divine incarnation, or the avatar doctrine, constituted the grandest mystery of every old religious system!” H. P. B. also says under “Avatar,” — “There are two kinds of avatars: those born from woman, and the parentless, the anupapadaka.” The Galilean Master was one of the former, in recognition of which he is called “the Christos” by St. Matthew.”

“Notes and Comments,” “Theosophical Quarterly” Vol. 10, p. 199

“[HPB has written:] “Re-births may be divided into three classes: the divine incarnations called Avatars; those of Adepts who give up Nirvana for the sake of helping humanity — the Nirmanakayas; and the natural succession of re-births for all — the common law.” Here, by the way, is the true meaning of the much misunderstood doctrine of “the immaculate conception.” It indicates a re-birth of the first of these three classes, that of an Avatar or Divine Incarnation, one who comes to birth not of necessity but from compassion, for the salvation of mankind.”

H. P. Blavatsky, “The Secret Doctrine” Vol. 1, p. 398-399

“The ancients taught the, so to speak, auto-generation of the Gods : the one divine essence, unmanifested, perpetually begetting a second-self, manifested, which second-self, androgynous in its nature, gives birth in an immaculate way to everything macro- and micro-cosmical in this universe. . . .

“How much more grandiose, philosophical and poetical is the real distinction — for whoever is able to understand and appreciate it — made between the immaculate virgin of the ancient Pagans and the modern Papal conception. With the former, the ever-youthful mother nature, the antitype of her prototypes, the sun and moon, generates and brings forth her “mind-born” son, the Universe. The Sun and Moon, as male-female deities, fructify the earth, the microcosmical mother, and the latter conceives and brings forth, in her turn. With the Christians, “the first-born” (primogenitus) is indeed generated, i.e., begotten, “genitum, non factum,” and positively conceived and brought forth — “Virgo pariet,” explains the Latin Church. Thus, she drags down the noble spiritual ideal of the Virgin Mary to the earth, and, making her “of the earth earthy,” degrades that ideal to the lowest of the anthropomorphic goddesses of the rabble.”

H. P. Blavatsky, Notes from “The Theosophist,” “Theosophical Articles and Notes” p. 123-124

“Shiva is the Logos, the Vach, manifested through the Shakti; and the union of the two produces the phenomenal creation, for until the Son is born, the Father and the Mother are non-existent [i.e. in the sense of unmanifested, and incapable of objective expression]. Now Shakti being a female principle, it is fully manifested through a woman, although, properly speaking, the inner man is neither male, nor female. It is only the preponderance of either of the two principles (positive and negative) which determines the sex. Now, this preponderance is determined by the Law of Affinity; and hence in a woman is manifested abnormally the occult power represented by Shakti.

“She is moreover gifted with a wonderfully vivid imagination — stronger than man’s. And as the phenomenal is the realisation or rather the manifestation of the IDEAL, which can be properly and strongly conceived only by a powerful IMAGINATION — a WOMAN-ADEPT can produce high occultists — a race of “Buddhas and Christs,” born “without sin.” The more and the sooner the animal sexual affinities are given up, the stronger and the sooner will be the manifestation of the higher occult powers which alone can produce the “immaculate conception.” And this art is practically taught to the occultists at a very high stage of initiation. The “Adept,” whether the Sthula Sarira be male or female, is then able to bring a new being into existence by the manipulation of cosmic forces. Anusáya, a female adept of the ancient times, is thus said to have conceived immaculately Dárvasa, Dattatraya and Chandra — the three distinct types of Adeptship.

“Thus it will be seen that the marriage of the occultist (who is, as already explained, neither male nor female) is a “holy union,” devoid of sin, in the same manner as Krishna’s union with thousands of Gopis. Sensual-minded men have taken this fact up too literally; . . . But, in fact, Krishna represents the seventh principle, while the Gopis indicate the innumerable powers of that principle manifested through its “vehicle.” Its union “without sin,” or rather the action or manifestation of each of these powers through the “female principle” gives rise to the phenomenal appearances. In such a union the occultist is happy and “without sin” for the “conception” of his other-half — the female principle — is “immaculate.” The very fact, that this stage pertains to one of the very highest initiations, shows that the time — when ordinary humanity, during the course of cosmic evolution, will, in this manner, be able to produce a race of “Buddhas,” &c, born “without sin” — is yet very, very far off — perhaps attainable in the sixth or the seventh “round.” But when once this possibility and the actuality of this fact is recognised, the course of living and education may be so moulded as to hasten the approach of that eventful day when on this earth will descend “the Kingdom of Heaven.”” 

~ * ~

This article may have raised more questions about various things. Please make use of the site search function (the magnifying glass symbol at the top of the page) and visit the Articles page to see the complete list of over 400 articles covering all aspects of Theosophy and the Theosophical Movement. The “Theosophical Quarterly” magazine from which many of the above quotes are taken was published by The Theosophical Society headquartered at New York. This no longer exists but is the subject of our extensive article The Forgotten Theosophical Society.

~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~